Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Where is the outrage?


driveby
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I don't like it, but also believe if you ain't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. The state is more than welcome to have a look at my fantasy trades, concert plans and Ebay purchases, if it also means they can monitor plans for the next 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it, but also believe if you ain't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. The state is more than welcome to have a look at my fantasy trades, concert plans and Ebay purchases, if it also means they can monitor plans for the next 9/11.

 

 

I disagree....people can be falsely accused or worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't like this at all. I suspect he will lose some more support on this type of thing. He is listening too much to his "Homeland Security" lackeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it, but also believe if you ain't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. The state is more than welcome to have a look at my fantasy trades, concert plans and Ebay purchases, if it also means they can monitor plans for the next 9/11.

 

 

+1

 

Let there be a camera on every street corner and on all points in-between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every line will be crossed if we allow it. The government just wants to "protect" you people. Who will protect us from our government?

 

Anybody that defends this should just deport themselves to China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good God....: :wacko:

 

Are you against wiretaps with probable cause? This is just an extension of that -- judges issue warrants every day, allowing the FBI to monitor all kinds of communications of suspected drug dealers, organized crime, etc. This story is more about technology than about privacy.

 

Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, stressed to the Times that agents would still need a court order to force providers to unlock encrypted data. "We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," Caproni said. "We're not talking expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you against wiretaps with probable cause? This is just an extension of that -- judges issue warrants every day, allowing the FBI to monitor all kinds of communications of suspected drug dealers, organized crime, etc. This story is more about technology than about privacy.

"Lawful intercept" systems built under current laws have already been abused for unlawful spying by governments and criminals. Trying to force technology developers to include back doors is a recipe for disaster for our already-fragile on-line security and privacy.

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just reads like a bunch of whackjob paranoia to me. I don't break the law so I don't worry about stuff like this. Things like the $13B national debt are a lot more troubling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I yield the floor and the balance of my time to my distinguished colleague Ursa....................... :wacko:

Why, thank you, learned friend.

 

I was thinking about this when I read it yesterday and it seemed to me that it should operate to the same standard as wiretaps, in other words, a court should warrant it. This has been the standard for decades (until warrantless wiretaps became the fashion). Why should Internet communications be held to be different than phone communications, always supposing the same privacy / court standards are held for both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, thank you, learned friend.

 

I was thinking about this when I read it yesterday and it seemed to me that it should operate to the same standard as wiretaps, in other words, a court should warrant it. This has been the standard for decades (until warrantless wiretaps became the fashion). Why should Internet communications be held to be different than phone communications, always supposing the same privacy / court standards are held for both?

 

We haven't agreed on much lately, but we agree on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So breaking my computer will save us from the next cock bomber and shoe bomber?

 

If the FBI observes you meeting with al qaeda operatives and buying large quantities of explosives and taking flight training courses and they go a judge to get a warrant to tap your phone and read your email, this allows them to defeat any encryption software you may be running. So, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the FBI observes you meeting with al qaeda operatives and buying large quantities of explosives and taking flight training courses and they go a judge to get a warrant to tap your phone and read your email, this allows them to defeat any encryption software you may be running. So, yes.

I'm thinking if they observe all that they won't need to tap your phone or read your email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information